Appendix 3: HFA Progress Reports (2007-09)

Appendix 3: HFA Progress Reports (2007-09)

Note 3.1: HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 – 09)

Table 3.1: List of national interim HFA progress reports (2008)

Note 3.2: Progress and challenges reported on HFA core indicators

NOTE 3.1: HFA Monitoring and Progress Reporting Framework (2007 – 09)

Actions to reduce risk from disasters and climate change are being increasingly adopted by communities, national authorities, civil society groups, and other responsible partners assisted by international agencies, to build a culture of resilience. The concept of disaster risk reduction is far more understood, and practiced than ever before. However, a lot remains to be done, better and faster.

While the HFA provides overall guidance on the possible range of measures that a country could implement to reduce disaster risk, the actual measures required depend on the country’s risk profile and socio-economic development context. A country’s progress in implementing the HFA can only be measured with respect to its disaster risk, without which, any judgment on the relevance or effectiveness of disaster risk reduction efforts would be inaccurate. A challenge is posed by the fact that while current knowledge permits a broad categorization of global risk by some hazard types, disaster risk information is still heterogeneous in quality and incomplete in coverage. The lack of gender disaggregated data in most countries poses a significant additional challenge.

However, global commitment to monitoring and reporting on disaster risk reduction and recovery actions is in past years, steadily gaining momentum. The recognition that it is necessary to institutionalise functions for tracking emerging trends in disaster risk and monitoring progress on risk reduction and climate change efforts is resounding. The need for better tools and capacities for monitoring disaster risk and progress being made in risk reduction has often been expressed by national institutions.

To enable countries in this respect, UNISDR in partnership with regional inter-governmental organisations, member states, UN organisations and agencies, and civil society organisations, has facilitated a first biennial, global review of progress in the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), for the period June 2007- May 2009 (hereafter referred to as 2007-09).

The 2007-09 HFA review process at the national level was facilitated through the development of an online tool – the ‘HFA Monitor’ (see technical annex note 3 for a detailed explanation). The tool is available online for country access at preventionweb.net and is facilitated by the UNISDR. With the help of the HFA Monitor, national authorities and HFA focal points assess progress for 22 indicators associated with the 5 HFA Priorities for Action, using five levels of progress to indicate the extent of progress made in efforts for HFA implementation.

The 2007-09 HFA review process at the regional level was facilitated through sub/ regional inter-governmental institutions of which some provided analysis of key trends, areas in which progress has been made, and challenges encountered in implementing risk reduction and recovery activities with specific attention to trans- boundary efforts. Appendix 5 contains a preliminary list of reports received from regional inter-governmental institutions, as of February 2009.

Participation in the 2007-09 HFA review signals a first comprehensive step in taking stock of results achieved so far, to help collectively prioritise risk reduction actions at the local, national, regional and international levels. While the monitoring and review of national progress facilitated online provides vital information for this global assessment report, it is important to stress that the primary objective of this review process is to strengthen the capacities of countries to monitor and assess progress in efforts for disaster risk reduction on an ongoing basis. Improved capacities in monitoring and reporting will enhance both disaster risk reduction policy and practice at the national level while identifying priorities at the regional and international levels.

The Global Network of Civil Society Organization’s is simultaneously also leading efforts with a range of civil society actors to strengthen public accountability for HFA implementation and enhance the ability of civil society groups to measure progress, formulate policy positions from the local level perspective, provide recommendations and establish baselines for discussions on progress in disaster risk reduction and recovery actions. The civil society review will complement the biennial HFA review facilitated by UNISDR and partners at the national level.

The results presented for the levelling of progress must be interpreted with some caveats: while guidance was offered online to assist countries with interpreting the indicators and levels of progress, the levels accorded in the national reports are entirely based on a country’s self assessment. The levelling of progress is relative and not necessarily comparable across countries (on some indicators, countries may mark themselves higher – or lower - on a relative scale because of ‘rate’ of progress rather than any ‘absolute’ criteria of progress achieved). Finally, scores on the 1-5 levels of progress do not necessarily indicate that a minimum or maximum level of progress in implementation of disaster risk reduction has been attained. Instead, a level 2 might indicate far more progress (in relative terms) for some countries than a level 3 for others.

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRESS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
HFA Priority for Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.
Core Indicator 1: National policy and legal framework for disaster risk reduction exists with decentralised responsibilities and capacities at all levels.
Core Indicator 2: Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at all administrative levels.
Core Indicator 3: Community participation and decentralization are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local levels.
Core Indicator 4: A national multisectoral platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning.
HFA Priority for Action 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.
Core Indicator 1: National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available and include risk assessments for key sectors.
Core Indicator 2: Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.
Core Indicator 3: Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards, with outreach to communities.
Core Indicator 4: National and local risk assessments take account of regional/transboundary risks, with a view to regional cooperation on risk reduction.
HFA Priority for Action 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.
Core Indicator 1: Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels, to all stakeholders (through networks, development of information sharing systems, etc).
Core Indicator 2: School curricula, education material and relevant trainings include disaster risk reduction and recovery concepts and practices.
Core Indicator 3: Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis are developed and strengthened.
Core Indicator 4: Countrywide public awareness strategy exists to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to urban and rural communities.
HFA Priority for Action 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors.
Core Indicator 1: Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, including for land use, natural resource management and adaptation to climate change.
Core Indicator 2: Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk.
Core Indicator 3: Economic and productive sectoral policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the vulnerability of economic activities.
Core Indicator 4: Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, including enforcement of building codes.
Core Indicator 5: Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes.
Core Indicator 6: Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure.
HFA Priority for Action 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.
Core Indicator 1: Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are in place.
Core Indicator 2: Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response programmes.
Core Indicator 3: Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.
Core Indicator 4: Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event reviews.
Levels of Progress:
Level 1: Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy.
Level 2: Some progress, but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment.
Level 3: Institutional commitment attained, but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial.
Level 4: Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources.
Level 5: Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels.
Source: Indicators of Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction of Disaster Risks and the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (UNISDR, 2008).

As of 28 February 2009, 62 countries have completed interim HFA progress reports online the HFA Monitor. A complete list is provided below in Table 3.1:

Africa (18) / Algeria / Asia (13) / Bahrain
Angola / Bangladesh
Burkina Faso / Indonesia
Burundi / Iran
Cape Verde / Nepal
Cote d'Ivoire / People's Dem Rep of Lao
Egypt / Philippines
Ghana / Rep of Korea
Kenya / Singapore
Madagascar / Sri Lanka
Malawi / Syria
Mauritius / Tajikistan
Mozambique / Yemen
Senegal
Sierra Leone / Europe (12) / Armenia
Swaziland / Croatia
Tanzania / Czech Rep
Togo / France
Germany
Americas (15) / Anguilla / Italy
Argentina / Macedonia
Bolivia / Montenegro
Cayman Islands / Sweden
Colombia / Switzerland
Costa Rica / Turkey
Dominican Republic / United Kingdom
Ecuador
El Salvador / Pacific (4) / Australia
Gautemala / Marshall Islands
Jamaica / New Zealand
Panama / Vanuatu
Peru
USA
Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. Of

NOTE 3.2: Progress and Challenges reported on HFA Core Indicators

Hyogo Framework Priority for Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation

Core Indicator 1: National policy and legal framework exists with decentralised responsibilities and capacities at all levels

A country's constitution, existing laws and governance structures provide the basis to develop plans and build on institutional arrangements for all areas relating to disaster risk reduction. The existence of effective national policies and legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction, therefore, is an indicator of national commitment to disaster risk reduction. Progress against this indicator is clearly related to the second and fourth core indicator in this Priority for Action, referring to the availability of adequate resources for implementation of risk reduction measures, and the presence of multi-sector institutional systems and platforms.

In high-income countries, policies and legal frameworks addressing disaster risk generally exist in each sector, for example, building codes that incorporate hazard resistant construction. High-income countries report a mean score of 4.1 in this area but state the lack of an overarching national policy and legal framework on disaster risk reduction, which could enable the issue to be addressed more holistically. Canada for example reports that the large number of federal institutions with varied mandates makes the implementation of the Emergency Management Act a challenging task. Some countries are now engaged in formulating such holistic national policies. For example the Cayman Islands are formulating a new Strategic Framework for Disaster Risk Management, backed by a new structure, the Hazard Management Cayman Islands (HMCI). Bahrain has instituted a National Committee on Disaster Management (see Box 6.2), but also recognises the need for a national policy.

National Committee for Disaster Management, Bahrain[1]

The Kingdom of Bahrain has demonstrated it’s commitment to strengthening disaster risk reduction capacity through the creation of the National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM) in 2006. As in other high-income countries, disaster risk reduction is already mainstreamed within individual ministries and agencies: for example Bahrain’s building codes and environmental regulations are based on international standards. However, there was no overall coordinating agency or a policy to define responsibilities at different levels of government. It is expected that the NCDM will lead the formulation of a national disaster risk reduction policy and improve coordination between the different sectors.

A number of middle income countries have overarching national policies and legislation on disaster risk reduction and those that don’t, are currently developing them. Political inertia in approving legislation and in developing the necessary technical and legal instrumentation and administrative arrangements for its implementation are reported, particularly in Asia. But some genuine progress is being made. Ecuador, for example, has included disaster risk management in its new constitution and, like Colombia, in its national development plan. Decentralised systems of governance for disaster risk reduction in countries across Asia (Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Iran among others) provide opportunities for participation at the local governance and community level.

The problem reported is that there is often no explicit link between national policies on disaster risk management and sector policies (such as for land use, building, social and economic development and environment), which leads to confusion regarding mandates and responsibilities for implementation, gaps and overlaps. At the same time, in many countries the impact of sector policies and legal instruments on disaster risk may be only tangential. As countries such as Panama report, even when instruments exist there are problems of enforcement and accountability, or as Guatemala reports, lack of resources and political will. At the same time, in countries where much risk prone development occurs outside of government regulation, sector policies and legal instruments may be ineffective. Progress in addressing the issue of accountability, however, is being made. As illustrated in Box 6.3, Colombia has recently completed an audit of disaster risk reduction, an example that will be revisited in Chapter 7.